I have a Blog and a lot of people come to learn Buddhism in it. I want to start doing articles on Theravada Buddhism and i do not have any idea if i can do it without being a bit corrosive in certain topics. I want some advice how to do this.
So can you guys help me?
It is most honorable to do whatever you can so that people who take what you give take it smoothly. However, what you can do in this area is limited.
To paraphrase Lama Tsongkhapa, if he who receives what you give is like a vessel turned upside down (not open to listen, to receive) nothing will enter; If he is like a leaking vessel (forgetful, not paying attention), whatever will enter will not remain; If he is like a dirty vessel (having a faulty motivation) the pure nectar you will pour in by way of teaching the Dharma will turn to mud.
However, there are things you can do to make sure people listen to you with an open mind. For instance, one is likely to be open if you are an example. If a beggar was to tell me the same thing my teacher tells me, it would not sink in in the same way because I would not be as open as I am in relation to my teacher. This is because I have more respect to my teacher, I trust him and I trust his words, his guidance, his intentions. Therefore, that your reader trust you is important. If he does not trust you, his ears will be closed. And in order to be trusted, you have to be trustworthy, you have to be exemplar, for instance in showing respect for others and other traditions. Maybe you can include Links to websites of other traditions on your blog, as a sign of openness, and interest from your part.
Moreover, I noticed that in the West, many people prefer being told that "it is a method, it is a practice, it is a path among many others, and it works in this and that way" as opposed to "it is the truth". We like being right, we hate being wrong, we dislike being proven wrong. So, if you emphasize (1) the practical aspects and (2) contexts, that might help not dwelling to much on the 'right or wrong' type of approach.
Finally, I visited my teacher recently. I also, tend to be a bit corrosive with regard certain topics and debating with him showed me that it was due to my own pride, my own arrogance. It's always the "I know, others do not" tendency, or the "How could anyone even think in this or that way?" tendency that tends to take over. If you reduce your pride, you will naturally be smoother and more respectful.
The Buddha said that in teaching/conversing with members of other sects, first establish common ground, then discourse within that universe of discourse on the basis of truth.
Its good to ask one self, "what do I like to gain?" And then it's good, to ask one self, "what would I need to sacrify?"
The rest is then a consideration of which way one likes to take. One is the journey to nibbana, the other wandering on in Samsara.
As for how the Buddha saw this point very clear, this Sutta might help you, to have no doubt of what you actually have already in the back of your considerations, as reason for this question: Abhaya Sutta: To Prince Abhaya So no "mercy", either in this or in that direction. One no mercy is for your and the benefit of many, the other is for not for your benefit nor for that of many, and your possibilities in action, are simply a matter of karmic-depended "accidents"
Especially if you talk on Dhamma or what the Buddha taught, keep always this sutta in mind: AN 4.83: Avannaraha Sutta - Dispraise
The Truth stands above the wish for harmony, since it is actually real harmony, aside of notions of attachment.
As for respect, just to be informed. For a Bhikkhu within the affliction of the Buddha, giving any sign for respect to Wanderers of other sects or to Bhikkhus who deserve "punishment" would be a fault. In the case there is a wanderer of another sect, even so, if he/she speaks Dhamma, its proper to pay respect.
As for one who does not really know now, of what is Dhamma and what is Adhamma, its good to be critical and respectful in both directions of course but bring them together and listen carefully about there arguments and reasoning.
As a Buddhist priest who has struggled with being too "caustic" in both that and other realms (music criticism, etc.) I have found that being explicit with your concerns about your own ability to address certain topics is good, in two ways. Firstly, it sends the message to those listening that you are thinking about how best to convey your topic. Second, it is a reminder to deepen your practice.
I am concerned, though. You seem to indicate that you are a monk, but in your statements on this thread you seem pretty confused about Buddhism. Are you part of a tradition where you can find someone (abbot, dharma teacher, etc.) who can mentor you through this process? I'm concerned about someone who claims to "teach Buddhism" yet not really know much about it.
(note: Quotes have been taken form the discussion here and are form Mr. Theravada, the questioner)
For example if you try to explain the reason for the sudden rise of extremist terrorism it is hard to explain it without looking like an Anti-islamic explanation. As you can see these things are complicated and when asked we must answer too.
It is not always necessary to answer: i.e. "when asked we must answer too", does not apply.
For example there are various questions which the Buddha famously left unanswered because answers to those questions wouldn't have been helpful.
Sometimes "the only winning move is not to play".
So what is your thought on this?
Someone asked that question (about a reason for terrorism) on Parenting.SE and I tried to answer it there.
The people (teachers) who teach children are trained that the doctrines and teaching materials must be "age appropriate" or "developmentally appropriate".
I judged it better to not even try to explain (and inevitably mis-explain) "terrorists' motives" to school children.
For example when people believe something like this, "Killing a non believe is a good thing and they will have heaven for that" it is clearly dumb and it will only feed a genocide. But some religions have these in their core.
I classify that as "hate speech". I'm unwilling to believe it.
And these innocent people ask us what should be the reason they should believe otherwise we must answer in a way that would make them understand while remaining respectful for their own belief as they are not still out of it.
You can perhaps use an 'I-message', something like, "The Dhammapada says that, Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal."
By doing that you might hope to talk about Buddhism, instead of talking about some hopelessly misunderstood version of something else.
People see with their ego and see everyone like themselves.
Really?
it is their own dilemma to deal with.
Buddhism teaches "a middle way between extremes"; so Buddhists can beware of engaging in so-called 'false dilemmas', for example:
Another thing is that Buddhism is clever at identifying abstractions: abstractions like "aversion", "Taṇhā", etc. Applying (or not applying) those abstractions to real-world (or not-so-real-world) entities takes something else (some other kind of skill, experience, I'm not sure what).
Still I find that Buddhism when it talks about abstractions isn't very insulting or corrosive: so keeping the talk quite abstract or non-specific, can be helpful (although, to be honest, people may not want to hear even the first noble truth).
So (about abstraction), saying "hatred isn't proper" is quite abstract and not specifically insulting anyone. Saying "you hate and therefore you're hateful" would be a lot more specific and a lot worse; so keeping things abstract is one way to avoid offending.
Maybe it's non-corrosive to teach general tools, vocabulary, logic, practical behaviour, and let other people accept and apply it in their own mind/life/time.
Another thing though (i.e. the opposite extreme) is that people can get to arguing about abstractions when they would have no argument about more concrete subjects.
Someone once suggested that I could categorize topics of conversation according to how near or far, how personal or impersonal, they are:
Anything reported in the mass media tends to be very distant: it's reporting on events which aren't now, aren't here, and aren't you and me.
In a way it's easier to argue about what's impersonal than what's personal: for example we could argue about who has the better football team; or for example people say rude things on the internet because they think they're anonymous or because they don't know who they're talking to.
Also in a way we don't know things which aren't here and now (and because we don't know them we argue about them, like the sectarians can argue about the elephant). Look at how the how the concept of "papañca" is kind of central in the essay, Non-violence -- A Study Guide.
I'm quite fond of the suttas. Thanissaro Bhikkhu's article about non-violence (referenced above), for example, is nothing but quotations from the suttas. Many of the other articles too, on Access to Insight, quote extensively from and/or are based on the suttas.
So maybe that is another hint: one way to ensure that the articles you write aren't too corrosive could be to base them closely on suttas -- try to defer to, try to quote, the Buddha-vacana where possible. You said, "it is very easy to look wise while saying really wise quotes" as if that's a bad thing, but I think that's kind of the point: not to look wise, but to try to make wisdom, wise quotes available.
Lastly you may be writing some 'mixed messages' here, for example:
These might be contradictory: can you be "a bit corrosive" and yet "not furious"?
Are you able to explain 'liberation' even if you feel 'compelled' to answer?
Returning to the subject of what's near and "personal", perhaps you're supposed to notice how you're feeling: if you're feeling angry, compelled, anxious, thirsty, (or a bit corrosive in certain topics) then that mightn't be an especially conducive state to be teaching.
Or maybe it's those "certain topics" which are better avoided.
Or maybe they're topics in investigate: do you know other teachings that are "a bit corrosive", do you understand why they have that effect, can you do or be the opposite (e.g. "non-hatred" instead of "hatred")? Or use impermanence: what is, after corrosiveness has come and gone?
